Which brand of 4x5 filmholder is best?

[tgtaylor]

Hmmm...I own 20 Toyo holders and all but 6 were purchased new. I never noticed an odor from either the new or the old and I have good olfactory sense.

[Lachlan 717]

I just measured the thickness of some Ilford FP4 negatives... 0.20mm = 8 mils = 0.008".

The Ilford datasheet says the base is 7 mils thick (0.180mm), so the emulsion is 1 mil = 0.001" thick.

I believe a shift of 0.005" in the position of the film would make a HUGE difference in the focus.

Sorry to avoid "real world" experiments and confuse the issue with the facts.

- Leigh

0.005" equals 0.127mm. This is just a bit more that the diameter of an average human hair. Try opening the tines of your micrometer 0.127mm.

For what it's worth, how do you plan to focus with the lens movements the thickness of a human hair? Your camera has some sort of ultra fine focus gearing.

Forget all of this priggish technical stuff; get under a dark cloth. Focus on something that is representative of what you intend to shoot when you solve the original question.

Then, move the lens back (or forward) the thickness of a human hair.

I bet all of the technical testing will be shown to be moot.

Once again, all of the factors I previously mentioned will play more of a role than 0.127mm lens position difference.

Get caught up in the art, not the science (even if they are "facts"), of photography.

[evan clarke]

I like the last generation of Riteways with the automatic slide stop. I have about 100 of these, about 40 Toyos and quite a number of Fidelitys. All are sharp but the Riteways are the ones I like best for using...Evan Clarke

[Leigh]

Forget all of this priggish technical stuff; get under a dark cloth. Focus on something that is representative of what you intend to shoot when you solve the original question.

Lachlan,

I've been taking photos for over 55 years. I've spent my share of time "under a dark cloth".

Your earlier statement that .005" positional error is not significant is just plain wrong.

If you don't have the balls to admit it, then just shut up.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

I like the last generation of Riteways with the automatic slide stop.

Hi Evan,

I must confess I don't know what the "automatic slide stop" is. Could you expound, please.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[John Kasaian]

I'm fond of old style Riteways, Agfa/Ansco, Baco, & Liscos. I even have a few Fotecs. Heck, I'll use just about anything if the negs "look" good.
What I won't use is Tiltalls---no locking ridge---the work of satan!

[Jim Jones]

A .005" film position error is something many of us just live with. The 1951 ASA standards specify a tolerance of +/- .007" in the film holder face to septum distance, and a .012" slot for the film. Holders can be well within this ASA standard and have more than a .005" error. Carefully measuring and selecting holders and perhaps reducing the film slot opening to just over the film thickness will help. In some holders two sheets of film fit that slot. Using an extra sheet of film is one inconvenient way of reducing this particular error. All of the above does not address the potential for film curvature due to gravity or humidity. However, stopping down to f/22 reduces the blur due to a .005" focus error to .00022" or .0057mm. I can live with that.

[Jeff Bannow]

I would think if you are trying to correct to this kind of tolerance, you would need to test each holder individually. I don't think shopping for a specific brand is going to do it.

I'm very happy with the shots I've gotten in many different brands. At least in my case, this kind of precision isn't necessary.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Lachlan,

I've been taking photos for over 55 years. I've spent my share of time "under a dark cloth".

Your earlier statement that .005" positional error is not significant is just plain wrong.

If you don't have the balls to admit it, then just shut up.

- Leigh

What a friendly person!

[rdenney]

I believe a shift of 0.005" in the position of the film would make a HUGE difference in the focus.

Sorry to avoid "real world" experiments and confuse the issue with the facts.

Leigh, is the contradiction in your statements above not visible to you?

You believe that a shift would make a (excuse me for shouting: "HUGE") difference, but have not tested it. Yet you are happy to claim that you are presenting facts.

Here's a fact: Thousands of photographers over many decades have made photographs that were more than adequately sharp using plain, inexpensive (well, they used to be) Fidelity, Lisco, and Riteway holders. I doubt that very many of them attempted to measure the focal plane position between their ground glass and their film position.

If this were not a fact, this forum would be replete with warnings about film holders, and it is not.

There are those who seek every slight and subtle detail to achieve as close to technical perfection as possible, and for them that is a hobby in and of itself. If that were the only path to stunningly sharp photography, there would be a lot less of it to enjoy.

Rick "who gets sharp, sharp, sharp images with a cheap Chinese roll-film holder and a 47mm Super Angulon after focusing with a 6x loupe and then stopping down" Denney